Re: more and more broken packages?
#include <hallo.h>
* Santiago Vila [Tue, Jan 21 2003, 05:18:24PM]:
> > No you should not run testing. Testing is a hole, and shouldn't actually
> > be run by anyone. The software that's there is there because it compiled
> > properly a few months ago, when something last made it in. It might be
> > buggy, it might reformat your hard disk, and it will not and can not be
> > fixed in the forseeable future.
ACK.
> If "testing (currently sarge) shouldn't actually be run by anyone", how
> can we honestly tell our users to upgrade to sarge when sarge becomes
> the new stable?
We should reconsider this recomendation, whereever there is one.
> If we get to the point of discouraging someone to use testing, the idea
> of "testing as a distribution which is in an always releseable state"
> is fundamentally flawed.
It is flawed. It was from the beginning. Testing is either reliable
(since the criterium to make a package go to does not really depend on
how many upstream bugs have been fixed), nor secure since there seem to
be no real motivation to make security updates from it. Testing has been
defined as a shadow of Unstable, but supposed to play the role of
frozen. Created to confuse the developers, to create hardly explainable
interrupts in the Sid developments, to make major flaws appear less
harmful and keep whinning users quiet.
Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
--
Erst wenn die letzte Aktie in der Keller gefallen, die letzte
Entlassungsparty gefeiert und der letzte Computer abgeschaltet ist,
werdet ihr feststellen, dass es ein Leben nach dem Optionsschein gibt.
-- Hal Faber
Reply to: